Tools
Immunophenotyping
Introduction
Immunophenotyping is a laboratory technique that employs highly specific antibodies conjugated to detectable labels to identify and characterize cells based on their protein expression profiles. By targeting antigens expressed on the cell surface, in the cytoplasm, or in the nucleus, immunophenotyping enables classification of cell populations based on lineage, differentiation, activation status, and functional characteristics. In routine practice, this approach most commonly uses flow cytometry, in which fluorescently labeled antibodies are detected by light-scatter and fluorescence-emission signals as individual cells pass through focused laser beams. The resulting multiparametric data enable precise identification and categorization of normal and pathological cell populations and serve as the diagnostic foundation for a wide range of hematologic malignancies and immune-mediated disorders.[1][2]
The ability of flow cytometry to determine the presence or absence of specific cell-surface markers underpins its diagnostic utility. Broad lineage-associated antigens, such as CD45 or CD56, facilitate the identification of major leukocyte subsets, whereas more refined marker combinations enable detailed subpopulation analysis. This capability is particularly valuable for evaluating leukemias, lymphomas, immunodeficiency states, and immune dysregulation syndromes, as well as for phenotypic characterization of neoplastic cell populations with prognostic and therapeutic implications.[3][4]
Since its introduction into diagnostic pathology more than 3 decades ago, immunophenotyping has profoundly transformed the evaluation of hematologic and immune-related diseases. Early applications were limited to single- or dual-parameter analyses; however, advances in cytometric instrumentation, antibody development, and fluorochrome chemistry have driven the field toward high-dimensional, multiparametric analysis.[5] Contemporary flow cytometers, equipped with multiple excitation lasers and optimized detector arrays, routinely support the simultaneous assessment of 18 to 30 parameters per cell, allowing high-resolution interrogation of cellular heterogeneity at the single-cell level.[6]
Complementary platforms have expanded immunophenotyping capability. Spectral flow cytometry captures the full emission spectra of fluorochromes, improving the resolution of overlapping signals and enabling highly multiplexed antibody panels with more than 40 markers.[7] Mass cytometry (cytometry by time-of-flight, [CyTOF]) further extends multiplexing capacity by replacing fluorochromes with heavy metal–tagged antibodies and using time-of-flight mass spectrometry for detection, thereby minimizing signal overlap and eliminating autofluorescence. These technologies enable comprehensive immune profiling in both clinical and research settings.[8][9]
Additional methodologies continue to play important roles in specific diagnostic contexts. Image cytometry integrates immunophenotypic analysis with high-resolution imaging, providing combined phenotypic and morphologic information that is particularly useful when sample volumes are limited.[10] Immunohistochemistry remains indispensable for tissue-based analyses, preserving spatial architecture and microenvironmental context, and thus complementing suspension-based cytometric techniques.[11] As immunophenotyping technologies continue to evolve toward increasing complexity and dimensionality, rigorous standardization, quality control, and harmonization of analytical and interpretive practices are paramount.[12][13]
Specimen Requirements and Procedure
Register For Free And Read The Full Article
Search engine and full access to all medical articles- 10 free questions in your specialty
- Free CME/CE Activities
- Free daily question in your email
- Save favorite articles to your dashboard
- Emails offering discounts
Learn more about a Subscription to StatPearls Point-of-Care
Specimen Requirements and Procedure
In pediatric immunophenotyping, a bone marrow sample is preferred for initial testing due to its higher cellularity and greater sensitivity for detecting minimal residual disease or low-burden leukemia. However, subsequent monitoring tests can often be performed on peripheral blood.[14] In adults, peripheral blood can be used for the initial immunophenotyping, particularly when blasts are circulating. Specimens collected by bone marrow aspiration, fine-needle aspiration, or cerebrospinal fluid are also viable options, depending on clinical suspicion.[15]
Blood storage should be minimized because prolonged storage can cause selective loss of cell populations, such as neutrophils and eosinophils, due to their short half-lives. Reagents such as Cyto-Chex and formaldehyde can extend the storage time of blood samples while awaiting flow cytometry results. When coupling immunophenotyping with flow cytometry, ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid is the preferred anticoagulant; however, heparin may be preferred when evaluating granulocytes. Protocols for specimen collection and anticoagulant selection may vary by laboratory.[16]
After sample collection, the target for the immunofluorescence marker is selected. Antibodies directed against the target antigen are chosen and labeled to enable detection of the antibody-antigen complex on the relevant cell population. Depending on the protocol and whether intracellular targets are assessed, the specimen may undergo washing and buffer-based preparation, with permeabilization (eg, Triton X-100) as needed, followed by centrifugation. The resulting cell pellet is washed, resuspended, and stained for the selected epitopes, then promptly analyzed by flow cytometry.[16]
Diagnostic Tests
Immunophenotyping can be useful for diagnosing a wide range of diseases, from inherited immunodeficiencies to hematologic neoplasms. Results may also support a suspected clinical diagnosis if diagnostic uncertainty persists. Examples of diagnostic applications and commonly assessed targets include the following:
- Acute myeloid leukemia [17]
- Chronic lymphocytic leukemia: CD20, CD22, CD23, FMC7−
- Mantle cell lymphoma: CD20, CD5+/−
- Prolymphocytic leukemia: CD20 (+i), surface immunoglobulin (sIg) (+i), FMC7, CD5
- Follicular lymphoma: B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2), CD43
- Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: BCL-2, CD43
- Burkitt lymphoma: BCL-2, CD10 (+B-cells[b]), CD43
- Hairy cell leukemia: CD20, CD22, CD11c, CD25, CD103, sIg (i) [18]
- Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma: CD7, CD25, human T-lymphtropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1)
- Natural killer cell differentiation: CD57
- Activated T cells: CD25
- T-cell large granular lymphocyte leukemia: CD5, CD7, CD16, granzyme-B, perforin, CD56
- Eosinophilic otitis media: Eosinophils [19]
- Multiple myeloma: Plasma cells [20]
- Common variable immunodeficiency: CD21, CD40 ligand (CD40L)[21]
- Leukocyte adhesion deficiency type 1: CD18, CD11b, CD11c [3]
- Non–small cell lung cancer: Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)[22]
Interfering Factors
Because flow cytometry–based immunophenotyping is a relatively recent addition to diagnostic algorithms, several factors can interfere with standardization, including:
- Reagent selection
- Specimen preparation and storage
- Data analysis and interpretation
Recent efforts have evaluated these sources of variability; notably, many recommendations are summarized in guidelines published in the European Journal of Immunology (2017 Oct:47(10):1584-1797. doi: 10.1002/eji.201646632).[4]
Results, Reporting, and Critical Findings
Immunophenotyping results and critical values may vary with age. Age-specific reference ranges are necessary for accurate interpretation, and for evaluating primary immunodeficiencies, lymphocyte counts should be interpreted using age-adjusted reference ranges. From birth to 18 years, lymphocyte counts generally decline. For example, a neonate with immunodeficiency may have a lymphocyte count similar to that of a healthy adolescent. Furthermore, the distribution of lymphocyte subsets fluctuates with age. Both factors must be considered when determining whether pediatric test results are within the expected range or indicate clinically significant abnormalities.[23] Age-specific reference values are relatively scarce, leading to misdiagnosis, particularly because immunophenotyping is commonly used to diagnose childhood primary immunodeficiencies. Reference ranges differ for each cell line and surface protein that is investigated.
Clinical Significance
Immunophenotyping identifies specific cell lineages, enabling the direct diagnosis of many immunodeficiency disorders in children and hematologic malignancies in all age groups. In some cases, immunophenotyping can be used as a diagnostic aid to clarify clinical diagnoses when the diagnosis is uncertain. When used as a clinical test, immunophenotyping is a noninvasive method to investigate the type and cause of specific immunodeficiency subtypes. Immunophenotyping can also be used before immunotherapy to determine whether a therapeutic target is expressed in the cancer cell line. Characterizing tumor antigen expression is often necessary to guide the selection of targeted therapies.[22]
Clinical applications of immunophenotyping are not limited to humans. Immunotyping has been used to predict survival time in dogs with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Furthermore, immunophenotyping has been used to predict the severity of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in humans with similar accuracy.[24]
Although blood and bone marrow are the most common specimens, cerebrospinal fluid samples can be analyzed in certain settings. Cerebrospinal flow cytometry can compare T-cell populations and the CD4:CD8 ratio, expanding the scope of immunophenotyping as a diagnostic tool.[25] Flow cytometry immunophenotyping also plays a role in detecting minimal residual disease after treatment of adult and pediatric lymphoblastic leukemia. Clinicians can detect aberrant leukemia-specific antigens that coincide with possible disease recurrence.[26]
Quality Control and Lab Safety
The increasing adoption of high-dimensional immunophenotyping platforms, particularly mass cytometry, has intensified the need for enhanced reproducibility and protocol harmonization across laboratories. Given the inherent complexity of mass cytometry–based assays, current methodological trends emphasize reducing technical variability through standardized workflows. One practical approach to achieving reproducibility is the use of a consistent reference sample derived from a single blood donation to approximate stable population frequencies across experiments. In the context of analytical performance, mass cytometry provides superior separation between negative and positive populations for phenotypic characterization; however, functional assays introduce additional variability. To address this, semi-automated tethered gating strategies (eg, FlowJo) have demonstrated superior quality control for functional analyses compared with fully automated algorithms such as the spanning-tree progression analysis of density-normalized events (SPADE) and the visualization of t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (viSNE), which remain better suited for large-scale phenotyping tasks.[27]
The Human Immunology Project, which maps the human immune system, emphasizes measuring immune variation and prioritizes assay standardization to distinguish true biological variation from technical artifacts. To meet this goal, the project promotes quality control through reduced reagent heterogeneity; standardized antibody panels for immunophenotyping; point-of-collection automation of sample processing; instrument setup using standardized beads with fluorescence assigned to defined target channels; centralized analysis by a limited number of coordinated experts; and use of automated gating algorithms. Despite these efforts, even well-characterized cell populations are defined inconsistently across studies, complicating harmonization and cross-study comparisons.[28]
In clinical immunophenotyping laboratories, consensus quality standards emphasize the implementation of robust, harmonized procedures across the preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical phases of testing.[29] Authoritative guidance from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, particularly guideline H62, and recommendations from the International Clinical Cytometry Society outline essential quality management practices. Routine daily instrument calibration and performance verification using standardized calibration beads are fundamental to maintaining stable instrument sensitivity, linearity, fluorescence compensation, and overall analytical consistency, and these activities must be systematically documented.[30]
Equally critical is comprehensive reagent qualification, including antibody lot validation and titration before clinical use. Laboratories are required to maintain strict control over reagent storage conditions, expiration monitoring, and lot-to-lot consistency.[31] For high-dimensional panels, metal isotope conjugation stability in CyTOF requires lot-specific verification by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry to prevent signal drift. Modifications to validated antibody panels should undergo formal risk assessment and receive explicit approval from the laboratory medical director.[32] To minimize preanalytical variability, standardized specimen handling and preparation protocols are essential, encompassing appropriate anticoagulant selection, defined timelines for sample processing, and uniform staining procedures.[33]
Analytical quality is further supported by internal and external quality controls, such as lyophilized control cells and fluorescence-minus-one controls, to ensure accurate marker detection and reproducible gating strategies.[7] Participation in proficiency testing programs and interlaboratory comparison schemes is strongly recommended to benchmark performance and identify systematic analytical bias. Where feasible, centralized or automated data analysis platforms are encouraged to reduce interoperator and interlaboratory variability, supported by standardized software configurations and harmonized reporting formats.[34][35]
Comprehensive documentation of quality control activities, nonconformities, and corrective actions is required to ensure traceability, regulatory compliance, and continuous quality improvement. In addition, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics emphasizes adherence to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments regulations, which mandate written procedures, ongoing personnel competency assessment, equipment calibration, reagent validation, proficiency testing, and regular inspections by accrediting bodies such as the College of American Pathologists. Collectively, these technical, organizational, and regulatory frameworks are designed to ensure the analytical accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical reliability of immunophenotyping results in both research and diagnostic settings.[36][37][38]
Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes
Immunophenotyping plays a critical role in the diagnosis, classification, and therapeutic monitoring of a wide range of hematologic malignancies, immune disorders, and transplant-related conditions. Accurate and timely immunophenotypic analysis is essential for guiding clinical decision-making, prognostication, and personalized treatment strategies. Effective use of immunophenotyping requires a coordinated, interprofessional approach to ensure patient-centered care and optimal clinical outcomes. Pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, transplant clinicians, laboratory scientists, nurses, pharmacists, and information technology professionals each contribute specialized expertise across the diagnostic and care continuum.
Clinical and laboratory professionals involved in immunophenotyping must possess specialized technical and interpretive skills, including appropriate test selection, specimen handling, antibody panel design, data analysis, and clinical correlation. Laboratory scientists and pathologists are responsible for ensuring analytical accuracy, quality control, and compliance with regulatory and accreditation standards, while clinicians integrate immunophenotypic findings with clinical, morphologic, and molecular data to establish diagnoses and guide treatment. Nurses and phlebotomists play a vital role in preanalytical quality by ensuring proper specimen collection, labeling, transport, and patient preparation, thereby directly impacting test reliability. Pharmacists contribute to therapeutic decision-making by aligning immunophenotypic results with targeted therapies and monitoring treatment response and adverse effects.
A strategic, evidence-based approach is required to standardize immunophenotyping workflows, minimize diagnostic variability, and reduce the risk of errors. Ethical principles, including informed consent, appropriate test use, data confidentiality, and transparent reporting of results, must guide all stages of testing and interpretation. Clear delineation of responsibilities among team members supports accountability and enhances efficiency, while effective interprofessional communication ensures that critical results are conveyed promptly and interpreted consistently. Structured reporting, interdisciplinary case discussions, and tumor board participation further strengthen collaborative decision-making.
Care coordination is particularly important in complex cases such as leukemia and lymphoma diagnosis, measurable residual disease monitoring, immune dysregulation syndromes, and transplant evaluation, where serial immunophenotyping results inform longitudinal care. By fostering collaboration, flattening traditional hierarchies, and recognizing the essential contributions of all healthcare professionals, interprofessional teams can enhance diagnostic accuracy, improve patient safety, and optimize outcomes. Through integrated teamwork, standardized processes, and continuous interprofessional education, immunophenotyping serves as a model for high-quality, patient-centered care delivery.
References
Bleesing JJ, Fleisher TA. Immunophenotyping. Seminars in hematology. 2001 Apr:38(2):100-10 [PubMed PMID: 11309692]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceFinak G, Langweiler M, Jaimes M, Malek M, Taghiyar J, Korin Y, Raddassi K, Devine L, Obermoser G, Pekalski ML, Pontikos N, Diaz A, Heck S, Villanova F, Terrazzini N, Kern F, Qian Y, Stanton R, Wang K, Brandes A, Ramey J, Aghaeepour N, Mosmann T, Scheuermann RH, Reed E, Palucka K, Pascual V, Blomberg BB, Nestle F, Nussenblatt RB, Brinkman RR, Gottardo R, Maecker H, McCoy JP. Standardizing Flow Cytometry Immunophenotyping Analysis from the Human ImmunoPhenotyping Consortium. Scientific reports. 2016 Feb 10:6():20686. doi: 10.1038/srep20686. Epub 2016 Feb 10 [PubMed PMID: 26861911]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceDelmonte OM, Fleisher TA. Flow cytometry: Surface markers and beyond. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2019 Feb:143(2):528-537. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.08.011. Epub 2018 Aug 28 [PubMed PMID: 30170120]
Cossarizza A, Chang HD, Radbruch A, Akdis M, Andrä I, Annunziato F, Bacher P, Barnaba V, Battistini L, Bauer WM, Baumgart S, Becher B, Beisker W, Berek C, Blanco A, Borsellino G, Boulais PE, Brinkman RR, Büscher M, Busch DH, Bushnell TP, Cao X, Cavani A, Chattopadhyay PK, Cheng Q, Chow S, Clerici M, Cooke A, Cosma A, Cosmi L, Cumano A, Dang VD, Davies D, De Biasi S, Del Zotto G, Della Bella S, Dellabona P, Deniz G, Dessing M, Diefenbach A, Di Santo J, Dieli F, Dolf A, Donnenberg VS, Dörner T, Ehrhardt GRA, Endl E, Engel P, Engelhardt B, Esser C, Everts B, Dreher A, Falk CS, Fehniger TA, Filby A, Fillatreau S, Follo M, Förster I, Foster J, Foulds GA, Frenette PS, Galbraith D, Garbi N, García-Godoy MD, Geginat J, Ghoreschi K, Gibellini L, Goettlinger C, Goodyear CS, Gori A, Grogan J, Gross M, Grützkau A, Grummitt D, Hahn J, Hammer Q, Hauser AE, Haviland DL, Hedley D, Herrera G, Herrmann M, Hiepe F, Holland T, Hombrink P, Houston JP, Hoyer BF, Huang B, Hunter CA, Iannone A, Jäck HM, Jávega B, Jonjic S, Juelke K, Jung S, Kaiser T, Kalina T, Keller B, Khan S, Kienhöfer D, Kroneis T, Kunkel D, Kurts C, Kvistborg P, Lannigan J, Lantz O, Larbi A, LeibundGut-Landmann S, Leipold MD, Levings MK, Litwin V, Liu Y, Lohoff M, Lombardi G, Lopez L, Lovett-Racke A, Lubberts E, Ludewig B, Lugli E, Maecker HT, Martrus G, Matarese G, Maueröder C, McGrath M, McInnes I, Mei HE, Melchers F, Melzer S, Mielenz D, Mills K, Mirrer D, Mjösberg J, Moore J, Moran B, Moretta A, Moretta L, Mosmann TR, Müller S, Müller W, Münz C, Multhoff G, Munoz LE, Murphy KM, Nakayama T, Nasi M, Neudörfl C, Nolan J, Nourshargh S, O'Connor JE, Ouyang W, Oxenius A, Palankar R, Panse I, Peterson P, Peth C, Petriz J, Philips D, Pickl W, Piconese S, Pinti M, Pockley AG, Podolska MJ, Pucillo C, Quataert SA, Radstake TRDJ, Rajwa B, Rebhahn JA, Recktenwald D, Remmerswaal EBM, Rezvani K, Rico LG, Robinson JP, Romagnani C, Rubartelli A, Ruckert B, Ruland J, Sakaguchi S, Sala-de-Oyanguren F, Samstag Y, Sanderson S, Sawitzki B, Scheffold A, Schiemann M, Schildberg F, Schimisky E, Schmid SA, Schmitt S, Schober K, Schüler T, Schulz AR, Schumacher T, Scotta C, Shankey TV, Shemer A, Simon AK, Spidlen J, Stall AM, Stark R, Stehle C, Stein M, Steinmetz T, Stockinger H, Takahama Y, Tarnok A, Tian Z, Toldi G, Tornack J, Traggiai E, Trotter J, Ulrich H, van der Braber M, van Lier RAW, Veldhoen M, Vento-Asturias S, Vieira P, Voehringer D, Volk HD, von Volkmann K, Waisman A, Walker R, Ward MD, Warnatz K, Warth S, Watson JV, Watzl C, Wegener L, Wiedemann A, Wienands J, Willimsky G, Wing J, Wurst P, Yu L, Yue A, Zhang Q, Zhao Y, Ziegler S, Zimmermann J. Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies. European journal of immunology. 2017 Oct:47(10):1584-1797. doi: 10.1002/eji.201646632. Epub [PubMed PMID: 29023707]
O'Donnell EA, Ernst DN, Hingorani R. Multiparameter flow cytometry: advances in high resolution analysis. Immune network. 2013 Apr:13(2):43-54. doi: 10.4110/in.2013.13.2.43. Epub 2013 Apr 30 [PubMed PMID: 23700394]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceMcKinnon KM. Flow Cytometry: An Overview. Current protocols in immunology. 2018 Feb 21:120():5.1.1-5.1.11. doi: 10.1002/cpim.40. Epub 2018 Feb 21 [PubMed PMID: 29512141]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceCzechowska K, Bonilla DL, Cotty A, Dankar A, Mead PE, Nash V. Beyond the Limits: How Is Spectral Flow Cytometry Reshaping the Clinical Landscape and What Is Coming Next? Cells. 2025 Jun 30:14(13):. doi: 10.3390/cells14130997. Epub 2025 Jun 30 [PubMed PMID: 40643518]
Iyer A, Hamers AAJ, Pillai AB. CyTOF(®) for the Masses. Frontiers in immunology. 2022:13():815828. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.815828. Epub 2022 Apr 14 [PubMed PMID: 35493491]
Atkuri KR, Stevens JC, Neubert H. Mass cytometry: a highly multiplexed single-cell technology for advancing drug development. Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals. 2015 Feb:43(2):227-33. doi: 10.1124/dmd.114.060798. Epub 2014 Oct 27 [PubMed PMID: 25349123]
Huang Q, Zhou Z, Lv Q, Min Q, Jiang L, Chen Q, Peng J, Zhou H, Zhou J, Dai Q, Zhou J. Imaging flow cytometry: from high - resolution morphological imaging to innovation in high - throughput multidimensional biomedical analysis. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology. 2025:13():1580749. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2025.1580749. Epub 2025 May 9 [PubMed PMID: 40416314]
Tan WCC, Nerurkar SN, Cai HY, Ng HHM, Wu D, Wee YTF, Lim JCT, Yeong J, Lim TKH. Overview of multiplex immunohistochemistry/immunofluorescence techniques in the era of cancer immunotherapy. Cancer communications (London, England). 2020 Apr:40(4):135-153. doi: 10.1002/cac2.12023. Epub 2020 Apr 17 [PubMed PMID: 32301585]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceKim SY, Huh HJ. Toward Standardization of Flow-Cytometric Immunophenotyping for the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Hematologic Malignancies. Annals of laboratory medicine. 2024 May 1:44(3):193-194. doi: 10.3343/alm.2023.0467. Epub 2023 Dec 26 [PubMed PMID: 38145894]
Greig B. Quality Control of Immunophenotyping. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.). 2019:2032():227-279. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-9650-6_14. Epub [PubMed PMID: 31522423]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceDworzak MN, Buldini B, Gaipa G, Ratei R, Hrusak O, Luria D, Rosenthal E, Bourquin JP, Sartor M, Schumich A, Karawajew L, Mejstrikova E, Maglia O, Mann G, Ludwig WD, Biondi A, Schrappe M, Basso G, International-BFM-FLOW-network. AIEOP-BFM consensus guidelines 2016 for flow cytometric immunophenotyping of Pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry. 2018 Jan:94(1):82-93. doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.21518. Epub 2017 Feb 21 [PubMed PMID: 28187514]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceAkanni EO, Palini A. Immunophenotyping of Peripheral Blood and Bone Marrow Cells by Flow Cytometry. EJIFCC. 2006 Mar:17(1):17-21 [PubMed PMID: 29795718]
Diks AM, Bonroy C, Teodosio C, Groenland RJ, de Mooij B, de Maertelaere E, Neirynck J, Philippé J, Orfao A, van Dongen JJM, Berkowska MA. Impact of blood storage and sample handling on quality of high dimensional flow cytometric data in multicenter clinical research. Journal of immunological methods. 2019 Dec:475():112616. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2019.06.007. Epub 2019 Jun 7 [PubMed PMID: 31181213]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceChen X, Cherian S. Acute Myeloid Leukemia Immunophenotyping by Flow Cytometric Analysis. Clinics in laboratory medicine. 2017 Dec:37(4):753-769. doi: 10.1016/j.cll.2017.07.003. Epub 2017 Aug 31 [PubMed PMID: 29128067]
Craig FE, Foon KA. Flow cytometric immunophenotyping for hematologic neoplasms. Blood. 2008 Apr 15:111(8):3941-67. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-11-120535. Epub 2008 Jan 15 [PubMed PMID: 18198345]
Saliba I, Alzahrani M, Weng X, Bestavros A. Eosinophilic otitis media diagnosis using flow cytometric immunophenotyping. Acta oto-laryngologica. 2018 Feb:138(2):110-115. doi: 10.1080/00016489.2017.1385845. Epub 2017 Oct 16 [PubMed PMID: 29037099]
Vergnolle I, Rieu JB, Avet-Loiseau H, Corre J, Vergez F. [Multiple myeloma immunophenotyping: method validation]. Annales de biologie clinique. 2019 Apr 1:77(2):197-217. doi: 10.1684/abc.2019.1426. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30998199]
Level 1 (high-level) evidenceWehr C, Kivioja T, Schmitt C, Ferry B, Witte T, Eren E, Vlkova M, Hernandez M, Detkova D, Bos PR, Poerksen G, von Bernuth H, Baumann U, Goldacker S, Gutenberger S, Schlesier M, Bergeron-van der Cruyssen F, Le Garff M, Debré P, Jacobs R, Jones J, Bateman E, Litzman J, van Hagen PM, Plebani A, Schmidt RE, Thon V, Quinti I, Espanol T, Webster AD, Chapel H, Vihinen M, Oksenhendler E, Peter HH, Warnatz K. The EUROclass trial: defining subgroups in common variable immunodeficiency. Blood. 2008 Jan 1:111(1):77-85 [PubMed PMID: 17898316]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceWojas-Krawczyk K, Kalinka E, Grenda A, Krawczyk P, Milanowski J. Beyond PD-L1 Markers for Lung Cancer Immunotherapy. International journal of molecular sciences. 2019 Apr 18:20(8):. doi: 10.3390/ijms20081915. Epub 2019 Apr 18 [PubMed PMID: 31003463]
Tosato F, Bucciol G, Pantano G, Putti MC, Sanzari MC, Basso G, Plebani M. Lymphocytes subsets reference values in childhood. Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology. 2015 Jan:87(1):81-5. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.22520. Epub 2014 Aug 6 [PubMed PMID: 25132325]
Comazzi S, Gelain ME, Martini V, Riondato F, Miniscalco B, Marconato L, Stefanello D, Mortarino M. Immunophenotype predicts survival time in dogs with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Journal of veterinary internal medicine. 2011 Jan-Feb:25(1):100-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2010.0640.x. Epub 2010 Nov 23 [PubMed PMID: 21092008]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceHümmert MW, Alvermann S, Gingele S, Gross CC, Wiendl H, Mirenska A, Hennig C, Stangel M. Immunophenotyping of cerebrospinal fluid cells by Chipcytometry. Journal of neuroinflammation. 2018 May 25:15(1):160. doi: 10.1186/s12974-018-1176-7. Epub 2018 May 25 [PubMed PMID: 29801453]
Schrappe M. Minimal residual disease: optimal methods, timing, and clinical relevance for an individual patient. Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program. 2012:2012():137-42. doi: 10.1182/asheducation-2012.1.137. Epub [PubMed PMID: 23233572]
Kleinsteuber K, Corleis B, Rashidi N, Nchinda N, Lisanti A, Cho JL, Medoff BD, Kwon D, Walker BD. Standardization and quality control for high-dimensional mass cytometry studies of human samples. Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology. 2016 Oct:89(10):903-913. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.22935. Epub 2016 Aug 30 [PubMed PMID: 27575385]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceMaecker HT, McCoy JP, Nussenblatt R. Standardizing immunophenotyping for the Human Immunology Project. Nature reviews. Immunology. 2012 Feb 17:12(3):191-200. doi: 10.1038/nri3158. Epub 2012 Feb 17 [PubMed PMID: 22343568]
Level 3 (low-level) evidencePlebani M, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Chiozza ML. Harmonization of pre-analytical quality indicators. Biochemia medica. 2014:24(1):105-13. doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.012. Epub 2014 Feb 15 [PubMed PMID: 24627719]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceMonaghan SA, Eck S, Bunting S, Dong XX, Durso RJ, Gonneau C, Hays A, Illingworth A, League SC, Linskens E, McCausland M, McCloskey TW, Rolf N, Shi M, Wallace PK, Litwin V, Kern W, Deeb G, Nash V, Olteanu H. Flow cytometry assay modifications: Recommendations for method validation based on CLSI H62 guidelines. Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry. 2025 May:108(3):252-266. doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.22202. Epub 2024 Aug 21 [PubMed PMID: 39165120]
Level 1 (high-level) evidenceCho MC, Kim SY, Jeong TD, Lee W, Chun S, Min WK. Statistical validation of reagent lot change in the clinical chemistry laboratory can confer insights on good clinical laboratory practice. Annals of clinical biochemistry. 2014 Nov:51(Pt 6):688-94. doi: 10.1177/0004563214520749. Epub 2014 Feb 4 [PubMed PMID: 24497612]
Level 1 (high-level) evidenceHan G, Spitzer MH, Bendall SC, Fantl WJ, Nolan GP. Metal-isotope-tagged monoclonal antibodies for high-dimensional mass cytometry. Nature protocols. 2018 Oct:13(10):2121-2148. doi: 10.1038/s41596-018-0016-7. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30258176]
Narayanan S, Guder WG. Preanalytical Variables and Their Influence on the Quality of Laboratory Results. EJIFCC. 2001 Apr:13(1):9-12 [PubMed PMID: 30459536]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceMulder AHL, Eidhof HHM, Gratama JW. External quality assessment of flow cytometric bronchoalveolar lavage cellular analysis: 20 years' experience in The Netherlands. Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry. 2022 Nov:102(6):451-457. doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.22090. Epub 2022 Sep 7 [PubMed PMID: 36070226]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceSiftar Z, Paro MM, Sokolić I, Nazor A, Mestrić ZF. External quality assessment in clinical cell analysis by flow cytometry. Why is it so important? Collegium antropologicum. 2010 Mar:34(1):207-17 [PubMed PMID: 20432753]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceHoll E, Kapinsky M, Larbi A. An Update on Flow Cytometry Analysis of Hematological Malignancies: Focus on Standardization. Cancers. 2025 Jun 19:17(12):. doi: 10.3390/cancers17122045. Epub 2025 Jun 19 [PubMed PMID: 40563694]
Cossarizza A, Chang HD, Radbruch A, Acs A, Adam D, Adam-Klages S, Agace WW, Aghaeepour N, Akdis M, Allez M, Almeida LN, Alvisi G, Anderson G, Andrä I, Annunziato F, Anselmo A, Bacher P, Baldari CT, Bari S, Barnaba V, Barros-Martins J, Battistini L, Bauer W, Baumgart S, Baumgarth N, Baumjohann D, Baying B, Bebawy M, Becher B, Beisker W, Benes V, Beyaert R, Blanco A, Boardman DA, Bogdan C, Borger JG, Borsellino G, Boulais PE, Bradford JA, Brenner D, Brinkman RR, Brooks AES, Busch DH, Büscher M, Bushnell TP, Calzetti F, Cameron G, Cammarata I, Cao X, Cardell SL, Casola S, Cassatella MA, Cavani A, Celada A, Chatenoud L, Chattopadhyay PK, Chow S, Christakou E, Čičin-Šain L, Clerici M, Colombo FS, Cook L, Cooke A, Cooper AM, Corbett AJ, Cosma A, Cosmi L, Coulie PG, Cumano A, Cvetkovic L, Dang VD, Dang-Heine C, Davey MS, Davies D, De Biasi S, Del Zotto G, Dela Cruz GV, Delacher M, Della Bella S, Dellabona P, Deniz G, Dessing M, Di Santo JP, Diefenbach A, Dieli F, Dolf A, Dörner T, Dress RJ, Dudziak D, Dustin M, Dutertre CA, Ebner F, Eckle SBG, Edinger M, Eede P, Ehrhardt GRA, Eich M, Engel P, Engelhardt B, Erdei A, Esser C, Everts B, Evrard M, Falk CS, Fehniger TA, Felipo-Benavent M, Ferry H, Feuerer M, Filby A, Filkor K, Fillatreau S, Follo M, Förster I, Foster J, Foulds GA, Frehse B, Frenette PS, Frischbutter S, Fritzsche W, Galbraith DW, Gangaev A, Garbi N, Gaudilliere B, Gazzinelli RT, Geginat J, Gerner W, Gherardin NA, Ghoreschi K, Gibellini L, Ginhoux F, Goda K, Godfrey DI, Goettlinger C, González-Navajas JM, Goodyear CS, Gori A, Grogan JL, Grummitt D, Grützkau A, Haftmann C, Hahn J, Hammad H, Hämmerling G, Hansmann L, Hansson G, Harpur CM, Hartmann S, Hauser A, Hauser AE, Haviland DL, Hedley D, Hernández DC, Herrera G, Herrmann M, Hess C, Höfer T, Hoffmann P, Hogquist K, Holland T, Höllt T, Holmdahl R, Hombrink P, Houston JP, Hoyer BF, Huang B, Huang FP, Huber JE, Huehn J, Hundemer M, Hunter CA, Hwang WYK, Iannone A, Ingelfinger F, Ivison SM, Jäck HM, Jani PK, Jávega B, Jonjic S, Kaiser T, Kalina T, Kamradt T, Kaufmann SHE, Keller B, Ketelaars SLC, Khalilnezhad A, Khan S, Kisielow J, Klenerman P, Knopf J, Koay HF, Kobow K, Kolls JK, Kong WT, Kopf M, Korn T, Kriegsmann K, Kristyanto H, Kroneis T, Krueger A, Kühne J, Kukat C, Kunkel D, Kunze-Schumacher H, Kurosaki T, Kurts C, Kvistborg P, Kwok I, Landry J, Lantz O, Lanuti P, LaRosa F, Lehuen A, LeibundGut-Landmann S, Leipold MD, Leung LYT, Levings MK, Lino AC, Liotta F, Litwin V, Liu Y, Ljunggren HG, Lohoff M, Lombardi G, Lopez L, López-Botet M, Lovett-Racke AE, Lubberts E, Luche H, Ludewig B, Lugli E, Lunemann S, Maecker HT, Maggi L, Maguire O, Mair F, Mair KH, Mantovani A, Manz RA, Marshall AJ, Martínez-Romero A, Martrus G, Marventano I, Maslinski W, Matarese G, Mattioli AV, Maueröder C, Mazzoni A, McCluskey J, McGrath M, McGuire HM, McInnes IB, Mei HE, Melchers F, Melzer S, Mielenz D, Miller SD, Mills KHG, Minderman H, Mjösberg J, Moore J, Moran B, Moretta L, Mosmann TR, Müller S, Multhoff G, Muñoz LE, Münz C, Nakayama T, Nasi M, Neumann K, Ng LG, Niedobitek A, Nourshargh S, Núñez G, O'Connor JE, Ochel A, Oja A, Ordonez D, Orfao A, Orlowski-Oliver E, Ouyang W, Oxenius A, Palankar R, Panse I, Pattanapanyasat K, Paulsen M, Pavlinic D, Penter L, Peterson P, Peth C, Petriz J, Piancone F, Pickl WF, Piconese S, Pinti M, Pockley AG, Podolska MJ, Poon Z, Pracht K, Prinz I, Pucillo CEM, Quataert SA, Quatrini L, Quinn KM, Radbruch H, Radstake TRDJ, Rahmig S, Rahn HP, Rajwa B, Ravichandran G, Raz Y, Rebhahn JA, Recktenwald D, Reimer D, Reis e Sousa C, Remmerswaal EBM, Richter L, Rico LG, Riddell A, Rieger AM, Robinson JP, Romagnani C, Rubartelli A, Ruland J, Saalmüller A, Saeys Y, Saito T, Sakaguchi S, Sala-de-Oyanguren F, Samstag Y, Sanderson S, Sandrock I, Santoni A, Sanz RB, Saresella M, Sautes-Fridman C, Sawitzki B, Schadt L, Scheffold A, Scherer HU, Schiemann M, Schildberg FA, Schimisky E, Schlitzer A, Schlosser J, Schmid S, Schmitt S, Schober K, Schraivogel D, Schuh W, Schüler T, Schulte R, Schulz AR, Schulz SR, Scottá C, Scott-Algara D, Sester DP, Shankey TV, Silva-Santos B, Simon AK, Sitnik KM, Sozzani S, Speiser DE, Spidlen J, Stahlberg A, Stall AM, Stanley N, Stark R, Stehle C, Steinmetz T, Stockinger H, Takahama Y, Takeda K, Tan L, Tárnok A, Tiegs G, Toldi G, Tornack J, Traggiai E, Trebak M, Tree TIM, Trotter J, Trowsdale J, Tsoumakidou M, Ulrich H, Urbanczyk S, van de Veen W, van den Broek M, van der Pol E, Van Gassen S, Van Isterdael G, van Lier RAW, Veldhoen M, Vento-Asturias S, Vieira P, Voehringer D, Volk HD, von Borstel A, von Volkmann K, Waisman A, Walker RV, Wallace PK, Wang SA, Wang XM, Ward MD, Ward-Hartstonge KA, Warnatz K, Warnes G, Warth S, Waskow C, Watson JV, Watzl C, Wegener L, Weisenburger T, Wiedemann A, Wienands J, Wilharm A, Wilkinson RJ, Willimsky G, Wing JB, Winkelmann R, Winkler TH, Wirz OF, Wong A, Wurst P, Yang JHM, Yang J, Yazdanbakhsh M, Yu L, Yue A, Zhang H, Zhao Y, Ziegler SM, Zielinski C, Zimmermann J, Zychlinsky A. Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (second edition). European journal of immunology. 2019 Oct:49(10):1457-1973. doi: 10.1002/eji.201970107. Epub [PubMed PMID: 31633216]
Cossarizza A, Chang HD, Radbruch A, Abrignani S, Addo R, Akdis M, Andrä I, Andreata F, Annunziato F, Arranz E, Bacher P, Bari S, Barnaba V, Barros-Martins J, Baumjohann D, Beccaria CG, Bernardo D, Boardman DA, Borger J, Böttcher C, Brockmann L, Burns M, Busch DH, Cameron G, Cammarata I, Cassotta A, Chang Y, Chirdo FG, Christakou E, Čičin-Šain L, Cook L, Corbett AJ, Cornelis R, Cosmi L, Davey MS, De Biasi S, De Simone G, Del Zotto G, Delacher M, Di Rosa F, Di Santo J, Diefenbach A, Dong J, Dörner T, Dress RJ, Dutertre CA, Eckle SBG, Eede P, Evrard M, Falk CS, Feuerer M, Fillatreau S, Fiz-Lopez A, Follo M, Foulds GA, Fröbel J, Gagliani N, Galletti G, Gangaev A, Garbi N, Garrote JA, Geginat J, Gherardin NA, Gibellini L, Ginhoux F, Godfrey DI, Gruarin P, Haftmann C, Hansmann L, Harpur CM, Hayday AC, Heine G, Hernández DC, Herrmann M, Hoelsken O, Huang Q, Huber S, Huber JE, Huehn J, Hundemer M, Hwang WYK, Iannacone M, Ivison SM, Jäck HM, Jani PK, Keller B, Kessler N, Ketelaars S, Knop L, Knopf J, Koay HF, Kobow K, Kriegsmann K, Kristyanto H, Krueger A, Kuehne JF, Kunze-Schumacher H, Kvistborg P, Kwok I, Latorre D, Lenz D, Levings MK, Lino AC, Liotta F, Long HM, Lugli E, MacDonald KN, Maggi L, Maini MK, Mair F, Manta C, Manz RA, Mashreghi MF, Mazzoni A, McCluskey J, Mei HE, Melchers F, Melzer S, Mielenz D, Monin L, Moretta L, Multhoff G, Muñoz LE, Muñoz-Ruiz M, Muscate F, Natalini A, Neumann K, Ng LG, Niedobitek A, Niemz J, Almeida LN, Notarbartolo S, Ostendorf L, Pallett LJ, Patel AA, Percin GI, Peruzzi G, Pinti M, Pockley AG, Pracht K, Prinz I, Pujol-Autonell I, Pulvirenti N, Quatrini L, Quinn KM, Radbruch H, Rhys H, Rodrigo MB, Romagnani C, Saggau C, Sakaguchi S, Sallusto F, Sanderink L, Sandrock I, Schauer C, Scheffold A, Scherer HU, Schiemann M, Schildberg FA, Schober K, Schoen J, Schuh W, Schüler T, Schulz AR, Schulz S, Schulze J, Simonetti S, Singh J, Sitnik KM, Stark R, Starossom S, Stehle C, Szelinski F, Tan L, Tarnok A, Tornack J, Tree TIM, van Beek JJP, van de Veen W, van Gisbergen K, Vasco C, Verheyden NA, von Borstel A, Ward-Hartstonge KA, Warnatz K, Waskow C, Wiedemann A, Wilharm A, Wing J, Wirz O, Wittner J, Yang JHM, Yang J. Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (third edition). European journal of immunology. 2021 Dec:51(12):2708-3145. doi: 10.1002/eji.202170126. Epub 2021 Dec 7 [PubMed PMID: 34910301]